TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibutors SVA and JKA were fictitious firms and the price at which goods were shown to be sold by these firms should be adopted for valuation of the goods. In the case of sale through consignment agent the argument is that the goods were being sold for the first time only by the consignment agent and the price at which consignment agent sold the goods less admissible deductions should be the assessable value rather than the value adopted for stock transfer. After proceedings in first appeal there is a confirmed demand of Rs. 1,98,236/- for the period April 1994 to Nov 1996, against the appellant along with appropriate interest. There are also penalties of Rs. 30000/- imposed on the appellant under Rule 173Q for the period April 94 to 27-09-96....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tly received by SVVPL and deliveries are made by SVPPL but invoices are raised by SVA 3.2 Facts relied upon in the case of JKA (a) JKA is acting as a sole selling agent from 01-04-96; (b) The Constitution of JKA is almost the same as that of SVA except that one partner in SVA changed; (c) No amount is invested by JKA in its business (d) The administrative office of the JKA is the same as the administrative office of SVPPL. JKA did not pay any rent to SVPPL. (e) Goods were being further sold in the same transport vehicle on the same day as the goods were shown to be purchased by JKA; (f) JKA did not pay any t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; (c) SCN does not say that such partnership firms do not exist: (d) Relationships among partners of the firm and Directors of the company cannot be a reason to hold that the firms were bogus; (e) The clause regarding sales return or replacement of damaged goods between JKA and SVPPL were usual commercial terms. 5. They also submit that even if the legal arguments of Revenue is taken as correct the quantum of duty calculated is not proper because the sale prices adopted for working out differential duty is not correct in Annexure-III because price per Metric Ton for the goods for all unit packing is taken as uniform whereas actually the price per ton depended on the contents in each pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat having separate sales tax registration are not sufficient to hold the units to be really distinct: i. Super Engineering Works vs. CCE - 2002 (140) E.L.T. A92 (S.C)] ii. CCE Vs. Modi Alkalies & Chemicals ltd.- 2004 (171) E.L.T. 155 (S.C) 8. When the facts of this case are considered it is obvious that the two firms SVA and JKA are floated only to suppress the value on which excise duty was to be paid. These distributors have no separate establishment, no staff and no activity other than raising parallel invoices. Further there is free flow of funds between the two entities. So it is obvious that the firms are set up for reducing excise duty incidence and to give financial gain of close relat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6-97; 11. The consequence of such verification is expected to be minimal. the appellant feels that there are mistakes in annexures and the liability will get revised if correctly calculated taking the price at which goods are sold by the distributors as basis. They have requested for copies of all documents seized for making a correct calculation. The adjudicating authority is directed to comply with this request. In fact the original documents itself may be released to the appellants at this stage. The appellants may submit its calculations within thirty days of receipt of such documents to the adjudicating authority for verification. When such calculation is submitted the benefit of cum-duty price also may be claimed by SVPPL. 12. T....